Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 31, 2014 4:30pm-5:01pm PDT

4:30 pm
on this item? okay, seeing none, we will move to item three, which is the board's consideration of the minutes, for the october 8th, 2014 meeting. >> the changes and corrections and revision and deleting? is there a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. >> so moved. >> public comment on the minutes. >> seeing none, if you could call the roll please. >> on that motion from commissioner honda to adopt the october eight, 2014, minutes, fung. >> the vice president is absence. >> president lazarus? >> aye. >> wilson. >> aye. >> those minutes ar dopted, next item is carole brown, verses the department of building inspection, protesting the issuance on june 26, 2014
4:31 pm
to scott dylewski to alteration permit to a new deck to the rear main level of the existing house to exterior stair to the rear yard and new doors to the main level and replace windows and incorporate new hallway. this was held, for this case, on september 17th, 2014 and the matter was continued to allow the time for the permit holder to submit the revised plans and the written consent from the adjacent neighbor, regarding the firewall issue, i believe that president lazarus and wilson were not here for that, but i understand that they both reviewed the file and the video. >> i have. >> and so we can proceed with the hearing. >> is the permit holder here? >> so you have three minutes to explain to the board where you in this matter. >> thank you, for continuing
4:32 pm
our appeal from last time. we provided the plans and there was one smaller or on the plans and we do intend to build the fire walls on both sides of the deck, extending nine feet from the building and it accidentally, and the section view two, shows a railing, but it was a mistake in the revision, i apologize for that. but, the elevation, correctly shows the fire walls. as well as the planned view. >> and we have comes to agreement with our neighbor that will satisfy her concerns about privacy, and we have also agreed to pay for installation, of lattice on her firewall to provide additional screening and we have a letter of support from her that she provided to us
4:33 pm
and so, the other conditions that we also agreed to were to make the firewall 32 inches above the deck and to provide the hard siding on the outside and paint it to the colors and similar to her firewall. and so, we agreed to all of those conditions. >> just one more comment, and that miss brown was on vacation, or not available, i was talking with her and i tried to get her submission to you guys. but, she did not respond, to her phone, or e-mail for 3 days before our submission was due last
4:34 pm
thursday. and so, when she did return, she sent us a letter, we don't know if we can submit that or not, and i think that she is expecting that you will see that. and she put additional conditions, which we don't necessarily agree to, but it is specifics about who is going to pay for the lattice on her property and i don't know if that is relevant to the hearing today. we are going to build the fire walls as we designed in the plans. and it is our agreement with her, separately to pay for within a certain limit the lattace work on her property. >> okay, i would like to see the letter. >> exactly. >> in addition, and final statement, you saw in our submital, the letter from our other neighbors to the south and the tenant as well as the --
4:35 pm
>> you had another neighbor. >> the neighbor at 181 hammer ton is to the south of our property, and as it discussed in the previous hearing, we secured a letter of agreement with the proposed plans because we are adding a firewall adjacent to their property. and both the tenant and the owner agree to the plan. >> okay, i see, the second letter is the owner of the property. >> correct. >> okay.
4:36 pm
>> we can hear from the administrator. and good evening, scott lazarus, and members of the board, scott sanchez and planning department, and one regarding the firewall and whether or not it satisfied the building code requirements and i did receive an e-mail saying that the plans look to meet the building code requirements and with regard to notification and last hearing we had asked that if the firewall is going to be proposed that they obtain the notice, essentially in agreement from the abuting property on the other side, which is the other letter that commissioner fung noted. and i
4:37 pm
am available for question, is there anyone here on behalf of the appellant? >> is there any public comment? commissioners, the matter is yours. >> well, commissioners i think that the letter from the appellant and i think that that completes the record and i am prepared to make a motion if there is no further comment. >> no i agree, and i am glad that it worked out for you folks. >> i move that regrant the appeal and up hold the permit with the modifications of the firewall. and that the notice requirement has been satisfied based upon the documentation from both adjacent neighbors. >> commissioner fung, do you find then that the permit that
4:38 pm
submitted with the second round of submitals just with this current packet is sufficient as a revision? >> yes, with the notice that the one section should reflect with the firewall presented in the elevation. >> was that correct? >> not to me. >> okay. >> i understand there was a question about the firewall going up high enough and i am concerned that if the plans needs to be revised in any way. >> we will use mr. sanchez's change, there is an inconsistentcy on the section detail that does not show, and it does show it, and some sense, but it does not clearly show that the firewall will be 42 inches above the deck of the deck. and so, yeah, so that i think as long as that is
4:39 pm
clarified on the section detail to insure that there is a firewall, 42 inches above the deck. >> above the neighbor's deck,; is that correct?? >> above their deck. >> okay. above the proposed deck. >> okay. >> it would, that is helpful. >> yes, thank you. >> and these plans are dated may 17th, is that an error? i didn't notice that. scott sanchez planning department, i do notice that a lot of architects when ne revise the plans they don't go back and change the dates of the plans and so certainly, yeah, that is a bit of a concern. >> did you reference the date that it was received by the board. >> okay. >> instead. so that we can be clear. >> did you have the permit holders and change of date in the initial at least one copy for the notice of decision? >> they are going to need, yes that is fine, they are going to need to submit the full set. >> right, for the initial release. >> sure. >> thank you. >> we can change the date. you
4:40 pm
can change the date here and then reflect the same date in the set that you turn into the building department. >> what is the date on the stamp in october ninth? no to the -- yes, to october ninth is fine. okay, so the motion then is to up hold the permit, with revised plans, submitted with the october ninth permit holder, with the finding that the notice requirement has been met? >> yes. >> okay. >> on that motion to up hold with the revised plans and that finding, the vice president is absent, president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> and commissioner wilson. >> aye. >> thank you. >> and it is four to 0 and this
4:41 pm
permit is about held with that and that finding, thank you. >> thank you. >> so item 5 is appeal number 1 4-093, and academy of art university, verses the zoning and administrator, and the property at 2295 tailor street, also known as 701 chest nut vaoet, appealing the issuance of the notice of violation and penalty alleging violation thes of the planning code regarding establishment of unauthorized non-residential use in excess of 4,000 quair feet in the north beach neighborhood commercial district. my understanding is that there is an agreement that may be reached and this case may be withdrawn. before we hear that from the parties, just a statement from the commissioner wilson, i believe that you indicated that you needed to recuse yourself? >> that is right. >> okay. >> thank you. >> and okay, so, we can hear from the appellant or the
4:42 pm
zoning administrator, whoever would like to go first. >> my name is allen murphy and i am appearing for the acami of art university, the zoning administrator and the university have reached an agreement to settle this matter, the university will be withdrawing the appeal presently before the board. we will be reducing the use to the size of the previous use, on the site, and a size that can be authorized under the planning code without legislation. once the university vacates the portion of the property that was not part of this legal retail use, the planning department will issue a lettering indicating that any violations under the notice of violations, and penalty will be treated in like penalty and subject to the novps. and specifically, the letter will provide, immediately, upon its release, for the acrual of any penalties
4:43 pm
urnt the novp to be deferred to the same extent, the penalties under all will be linked to the environmental review process for the properties and the parties agree that the final will include the language, granting the zoning administrator discretion, either to issue a subsequent determination and modify the terms for the novp and to insure the timely completing of the impact report for the university properties or alternatively to issue an order of abatement and assess administrative penalties of up to 250 dollars per day and the violation continues unabated any such determination or order will be appealed to the board with regard to the timing and amount of the assessed penalties, providing that mr. sanchez agrees with the characteration of the agreement, the university will
4:44 pm
formally withdraw its appeal. >> we have a long history of enforcement, regarding the university and over the last year we have made progress in bringing the propertis in compliance, in terms of processing the eir that is required to bring many of these properties before the planning commission for their consideration, in regard to this property, we had treated this differently from some of the other properties which we had held the penalties and tied them to the eir and however in this case, as currently occupied the building cannot be legalized and under the zoning for the subject property, the academy has indicated that they will reduce the size of the use to something that could be approved and that will be bringing it back to the last legal use of the property which appears to be the gap several years ago. so we are working with them to find out the figures on that and to move
4:45 pm
forward with that. but, once they get to the point that the property could be legalized under the planning code and then we will be willing to consider it as we have with the other propertis that have outstanding violation and we would then tie the dates to the targets toward completing the eir, and so, it is anticipated that that will be some time in january and so beginning with the withdraw of the appeal penalties we will accrue and continue to accrue until they render the building in such a way that it could be approved under the planning code and i am available for any questions. >> and i wonder if i have to recuse myself since i was at planning when we heard this originally. >> a few years ago, back in the 90s. >> yes, when it was the art institute in the 90s. >> i think that you are okay. >> thank you. >> and is there any public comment? >> okay. so, is there a
4:46 pm
something that you will be submitting to withdraw this. >> sure, i have completed the withdraw request here. >> okay. >> show that. >> okay. >> for the record i have been handed the withdraw request form by mr. murphy. thank you. >> thank you. >> and we will go and get the commissioner, excuse me one minute.
4:47 pm
>> commissioners, and so item number 6 on your agenda is your consideration and adoption of the fiscal report and that covers july 1, 2013, and june 30, 2014, to educate the public and to pull fill a charter requirement that applies to all cities boards and commits to publish a report each year and what i would like to do is to give you some of the highlights of the report briefly and then of course, answer any questions that you may have and hopefully entertain a motion to adopt the report. >> fiscal year, 14 was a busy year for the board, you
4:48 pm
percented a 28 percent increase in the number of new matters filed and a 24 percent increase in the number of cases heard by the board during the year. you heard 182 matters which included 138 cases, and 19 jurisdiction requests and 25 rehearing requests and as i mentioned that is 24 percent higher than what you heard from the year and 60 percent higher than what you heard in the fiscal year 12 when only 114 matters were considered, this is also the first year, since the economic decline began and that the board exceeded the ten, that the ten-year average for the appeal volume and so, if the packet seemed heavier and it took longer to read through them you may understand why that was. and stepping out of the report just for a minute to look at year to date information, the volume of new appeals may have slowed a little bit so far this year, we look at the first quarter of the current year that we have 44 new appeals that we have
4:49 pm
filed and it is too early to predict how the year will pan out and at this rate we will have a 20 percent lower volume of new matters filed. if you look at page 5 of the report, you can see that there is a map that shows the addresses where the different appeals were filed and this is actually, showing that the appeals were spread out a little bit more than is typical for the board, and often times we will see a concentration in the northeastern section of the city but this year, they were more evenly spread out and i think that that may largely be due to the at& t that were appealed, since they have it in the business model to roll out throughout the city and they are creating appeal opportunities more widely and we are seeing those come to us. >> and on page 6 of the report, it discusses where the appeals come from. and which underlying departments are generating decisions that are appealed to the board. typically, we see land use decisions coming out
4:50 pm
of dbi and planning represent between 60 and 75 percent of the board's docket, but this year, while land use, determinations did not comprise as large of a proportion as in the past, the actual number of land use decisions did not really drop that much and if you look at the chart on page 6 that shows the five year distribution of appeals that came to the board and you can see that for dbi and planning the numbers really did not drop very much this year and, what changed of course was this huge uptick in the number of cases from dpw. and so that is why there has been a shift in what the board looked at in fiscal year, 14, 44 percent of the board's work load came from the dpw and the at& t cases alone, comprised 20 percent of the cases that you heard and these cases from at & t are another example of what we see from year to year where a business trend and a new legislation and a enforcement by a city department will effect the work that the board does and a
4:51 pm
couple of years ago, fiscal year 12, we saw an uptick in cases not as happy as the one that we had this year and that was from the new legislation effecting the mobile food facility and the popularity of the food trucks in the city and fiscal year 11, you can see the smaller uptick in the cases that i think that stemmed from the extra enforcement or the new enforcement of the tobacco sales permit. this report also looks at the out come of the decisions and how you decided case and the majority of the case thises year, 65 percent, the board denied the appeal and upheld the underlying departmental decision, the appeals were granted 23 percent of the time. and looking at out come by department, you can see that this is the chart on page , that dbi and planning, the board was pretty evenly split that about half of the cases were granted and half were denied and i think that what really created the veriation here, and the wider spread in appeals being denied is again,
4:52 pm
the at& t cases and the cases where the majority of those cases were denials. >> you can so that this currentoer was extreme and there was a large variance that you can see in fiscal year 12 and i think that was the mobile food where the board tend to grant the appeals and placed a form of conditions on the permit but it does tend to shift from year to year. and with respect to jurisdiction requests and the requests typically the board will deny more of those than grant them. and 78 percent of rehearing
4:53 pm
questions were denied and 69 percent of the jurisdiction requests. >> we had a good budget year and there were surplus in both sources totaling over $150,000, i think that city wide permit application volume was quite robust and that caused our revenue from the surcharges placed on those applications to proceed projections by 15 percent >> and did the fees go up? >> no our fees did not go up. >> the surcharge did not go up. and the fact that the economy was doing so well has helped us the last few years, to avoid having to increase, because the projections have been that we will generate additional dollars in surcharge revenue without having to change the surcharge rate. >> we also have the increase in appeal volume that generated the appeals fees and that was up by 35 percent over the
4:54 pm
projection. and so, while the filing fees tend to fluctuate not just on the number but the types of appeals because the fees are slightly different depending on the type of appeal and i know that there is an request on the board to have us look at reducing the filing fees and i am in discussions with the mayor's office on that and they did not want to make that adjustment. but they are looking at doing it possibly in the next budget cycle and they wanted to have more time to study our fee structure and come up with a foundation for a new proposal and that topic is on the table. >> is there a consideration? >> i don't have any dollar amounts that they are looking at and i think that one of the goals here that we have talked about is try to level them out more and so there is not as much disparity between the amount that a person needs to pay for a filing an appeal of a zoning administrator, determination as opposed to a building permit.
4:55 pm
>> okay. >> on the expenditure side there is a chart on page 11 that shows you how the board operating budget is extended and the vast majority as is typical for us is spent on the salaries and fringe benefits of our staff that covers 72 percent of the budget and the services of other departments represents 19 percent of our budget and that largely goes to the city attorney's office and also the department of technology, and their staff provides not only coverage of these board meetings on tv, but also support to us in the office for our data base and other technical needs. the remaining budget to rent and phones and the services of outside vendors which is primarily the folks who provide us with the address for the neighborhood notification and also the interpreters that you will see and the folks that
4:56 pm
deliver the packet and the remaining two percent that just covers the materials and supplies and i will say that the vast majority goes to the post-age for the neighborhood mailing. >> you did not want to do a graph of how many dinners you had to provide. >> i guess that i could add that. >> and i was not going to bring that up, madam president. >> very sensitive, she is very careful about it. >> we will give you $20. >> we try to keep the expenses down as much as possible and we came in under budget, 9.2 percent, this year. and so a savings of nearly $90,000. and the savings were found in a variety of areas, and a large chunk was from our decision to use the department of technology for the support of our data base instead of going outside of the cities to a private company. and we also had some reduced spending on our city attorney costs and that was about 14 percent less than budgeted. and a little bit of savings on the sfgtv and it
4:57 pm
is hard to predict where we will fall and how many hours we will have meetings and so we tend to budget more comfortable for that and then typically not use the entire budget. >> so actually, sourcing out is what would be more expensive than using the city and county? >> for that particular item, yes. because the data base was developed by the department of technology it would, and it was much more cost effective than to use them for support. >> at the first that is basically an hourly charge if you will? >> it is just like working with a private firm, we are paid by the --. >> billable hours? >> yes, exactly. so, with the revenue surplus and the expenditure savings we ended the year with $210,595, left over. and as you may recall, last year, there was a deferred credit account set up for the board a a rainy day fund and so that money will go into that
4:58 pm
fund and it is something that can be used in future years if we find ourselves in worse economic times where our revenue is not coming in as projected and we will be able to use that money instead of going to the city for a general fundal indication. since our sources are passive, we cannot generate how many people are going to get permits or how many people want to file appeals, it is helpful to have that. >> by having a surplus, does that effect what we can request from the city for the fiscal year. >> it is actually a fund that is set aside and it is not considered for us to use when we are generating our next year budget projections so it will not reduce the rates or the fees and it is kept as a rainy day fund in case we have past years and you will see in the chart in the report that looks at the past ten years of on page 11 of the total budget, and you can see that there have
4:59 pm
been years when you know, we have not made the revenue that we have needed for the operating expenses. >> i remember discussing this last year and that is actually very prudent and smart. sxhe. other than the things that i have covered the report has a few other items, our performance measure and things that every department has to have to help to measure the performance from year to year and two unique measures and one that looks at how often a board decides cases in 75 days of filing and the other one looks at how often the staff releases decisions been 15 days of the final action and we exceeded both of those goals in the reporting year. and the report also covers staffing and we did for the have any changes to our structure or our staff members and we are lucky to have a team of folks who are staying in place for now and i am actually very pleased to report that this year the clerks finished a really huge job, scanning all of the board's decisions that were issued since the board's inception in 1932 and it has
5:00 pm
taken a few years to get through all of them, there are more than 30,000 files scanned. >> were you on that bortd, frank? >> yes, sir >> and these are available in our office and if the people come to ask about the prior cases but they are available in the planning department data base, if someone is going research, they can see the special decisions that effect that property from the board. >> and actually was there, and i know that it does not regard, and it is not regarding revenue, but it was regarding the decision making of the board on how i think that you mentioned we were the most, and we voted together, more often, last year. and was that or would that be in the annual report as well? >> i don't have that information, and how many decision decisions were you man maous verses divided? it will be interesting to look at but i have not and i will make a note of that. >> but there are three appendix in the report and e


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on